Palimpsest: Novel vs. Show

[Whimsy]

I listened to the Claire Danes version of the audio book between episodes 8 and 9.  I have to admit- I like the show way better.  I will also admit that I listened to it while at work so I found myself tuning out chunks of the book as I was working on something.  The only reason I could understand what was going on was as it tied to a scene in the show.  But, I did hear the vast majority of it. 

I like the expansion of the world.  I like June being a bit more pragmatic and wanting to make a change.  I know that most likely I would (and most of the rest of us may) be like the book characters- just doing what they need to do to get by- but I like my books/movies/TV shows to have characters who are bucking the system.

I actually HATED the end of the book with the conference.  The voice of the guy made me want to gauge out my eardrums.  I listened to most of it, but my skin was crawling so much I don't think I retained very much.  I prefer to now see what happens next through the show than hear it from some weird, pompous academia type person (I work in academia, so I am not knocking all scholars- just this one).

Maybe I would feel differently if I had read this much earlier in my life, like most of you.  I don't know. 

[Umbelina]

So, here's my guess guys, what do you think?

I think they filmed the final episode, NIGHT as is.  However there was one additional scene.  The whole epilogue was probably filmed as well, or voiced over in some way.

IF they were renewed, simply cut that as the final scene and save it for later (as needed.)  They were renewed, so that scene was cut completely so we can watch more of Gilead/Mayday/Canada during a second season.

That was a pretty brilliant way to go if I'm right.  They would have had a book-ending, but because of the second season news, they don't need it yet.

[txhorns79]

Quote

That was a pretty brilliant way to go if I'm right.  They would have had a book-ending, but because of the second season news, they don't need it yet.

I don't know if I'd call it brilliant, so much as hedging your bets.  I've certainly heard of other shows where the show runners planned two versions of a season finale, one for if the show was cancelled and another if the show was picked up for another season.    

Quote

I like the expansion of the world.  I like June being a bit more pragmatic and wanting to make a change.  I know that most likely I would (and most of the rest of us may) be like the book characters- just doing what they need to do to get by- but I like my books/movies/TV shows to have characters who are bucking the system.

I did like getting a sense of the world outside Gilead.  The book hinted at it with discussions of Save the Women campaigns in England and the Underground Femaleroad, but I really did like how almost shocking it felt to see that normalcy still existed elsewhere after being in Gilead. 

[Umbelina]

I don't think it was hedging the bets.  If the show was over, it was over, and I think they would have included the epilogue.  Why not? 

It wasn't over, so they didn't.  The finale worked well either way, whether season, as we saw, or some sort of epilogue to tie it up a bit for a series ender.

I hope the second season takes us more into both the future examinations of past Gilead, not just the Professor, but other studies.  How did it end?  How bad did it get?  (book says much worse for handmaids, etc.) Unless they change book canon, some revolution right now will not end Gilead, it continues for quite a while.

Anyway, she's writing another book apparently, I wonder if they will use parts of that?

Edited June 14, 2017 by Umbelina

[Becks]

22 hours ago, GenL said:

I listened to the Claire Danes version of the audio book between episodes 8 and 9.  I have to admit- I like the show way better.  I will also admit that I listened to it while at work so I found myself tuning out chunks of the book as I was working on something.  The only reason I could understand what was going on was as it tied to a scene in the show.  But, I did hear the vast majority of it.

I know Claire Danes has been widely praised for her reading of the novel, but I wasn't a fan of her delivery - I found it very droning. No wonder you were tuning out.

[Whimsy]

44 minutes ago, Becks said:

I know Claire Danes has been widely praised for her reading of the novel, but I wasn't a fan of her delivery - I found it very droning. No wonder you were tuning out.

Lol.  I agree.  It was very droning.  Very little inflection.  No change of voice for different characters.  It was a bit monotonous.

[Becks]

45 minutes ago, GenL said:

Lol.  I agree.  It was very droning.  Very little inflection.  No change of voice for different characters.  It was a bit monotonous.

Agree with all of that. Plus - and this is purely subjective, of course - her voice just wasn't Offred to me. Elisabeth Moss's voice works much better for me.

[Eureka]

Reporting back...my DS16 finished the book and loved the Historical Notes section like I thought he would. I have not watched the season finale yet but gather from what I am skimming that these notes do not appear because there will be a season 2. I am disappointed with the direction this has gone in. DS is going to start watching now and I think he is also not going to like the return of Luke and Moira. He is not looking forward to seeing some of the Ceremony scene, which he thinks (and I agree, having seen them) will be very awkward to watch. I thought the Historical Notes was the best part of the whole book in terms of giving it a framework and answering some of the questions that were vague in the book, like what was Nick's role and did Offred get out alive, which we obviously end up finding later that she did. Oh well, I probably will watch season 2, or at least start it.

[JasonCC]

Do you think one aspect of the book that wasn't covered in the first season could be June's mother? Would be interesting to see her in flashbacks.

[Eureka]

2 hours ago, JasonCC said:

Do you think one aspect of the book that wasn't covered in the first season could be June's mother? Would be interesting to see her in flashbacks.

I mentioned that to my son, who just finished the book and has watched the first three episodes. He said he thinks the mother will be in season two. I kind of think that ship has sailed but I could be wrong. 

[OtterMommy]

3 minutes ago, Eureka said:

I mentioned that to my son, who just finished the book and has watched the first three episodes. He said he thinks the mother will be in season two. I kind of think that ship has sailed but I could be wrong. 

I agree.  To introduce the mother in season 2 after never even mentioning her existence in the first season would smack of retconning.  Honestly, I'm okay that the mother is not in the series, although I also would be okay if she had been.  However, that door has now closed.

[chocolatine]

10 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

I agree.  To introduce the mother in season 2 after never even mentioning her existence in the first season would smack of retconning.  Honestly, I'm okay that the mother is not in the series, although I also would be okay if she had been.  However, that door has now closed.

Her existence was mentioned in the first season - the guy who was going to smuggle June, Luke and Hannah across the border in the flashbacks told June that she looked just like her mother, who gave him a vasectomy after it became illegal.

[OtterMommy]

2 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Her existence was mentioned in the first season - the guy who was going to smuggle June, Luke and Hannah across the border in the flashbacks told June that she looked just like her mother, who gave him a vasectomy after it became illegal.

Aw thanks, I forgot about that.  Still, I'm not sure it is enough to make her presence in season 2 something that would make sense.

[txhorns79]

Quote

Aw thanks, I forgot about that.  Still, I'm not sure it is enough to make her presence in season 2 something that would make sense.

I can imagine them doing something where certain events or happenings remind June of her mother, and we see her in flashbacks.  Most of her appearances in the book are told via flashback, so I think that would work, if they wanted to explore the topic. 

[OtterMommy]

4 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I can imagine them doing something where certain events or happenings remind June of her mother, and we see her in flashbacks.  Most of her appearances in the book are told via flashback, so I think that would work, if they wanted to explore the topic. 

I could see that working.  However, June--in the show--never seemed to have any strong emotions tied to her mother that we saw.  To suddenly have her wanting her mother, to be concerned about this person who wasn't mentioned in more than one sentence by a tertiary character, just wouldn't ring true.  So, if we do see June's mother, I can only see it if it were done through flashbacks.

[AllyB]

I think if they were to introduce June's mother, the only way to do so would be to have her in flashbacks and for her story to be that she actually died very early into Gilead's existence. But I suspect that she won't be included. I also have my doubts about the Econowives. The flashbacks in The Other Side made it clear that any fertile women were just rounded up and sent to centres. So any and all fertile women are Handmaids not women who fell foul of some retroactively pursued law and were also fertile. That means Econowives, at least of the triple-striped dress variety, can't exist as Econowives were (at least potentially) fertile.

[Miles]

I just finished the book today. It was good and thought provoking, certainly. But it couldn't have been filmed the way it was. It basically would have been Offred sitting in her room 90% of the time. So I don't quite get the critic I've seen in episode threads from time to time. As a book, a person too terrified to do anything, works. It shows what opression can do to a person. But it would be awfull television. So June has to be proactive, try to join the resistance, actively defy orders, etc.

On 27.4.2017 at 2:25 PM, stagmania said:

I've seen some interesting commentary about race in this universe. In the book, black women were shipped off to the colonies, but my understanding is that they've changed that on the show in order to have a more diverse cast. While I think it's great that they wanted to avoid a lily white universe, it seems that instead of making a significant change to the world-building and devising an alternate explanation for why women of all races are handmaidens, they're just ignoring it and going with a "color-blind" casting approach. That's problematic on its own, because it necessitates ignoring structural and systemic racism in a universe that is supposed to closely mimic our own. I wonder if this will be addressed in the show at some point.

Your post was from a while ago, so you probably found out the explaination by now. If not: They made it clear on the show that Gilead (and other countries) are a lot more desperate. In the book it was mainly white women who didn't get children anymore and so they wanted to stock up on white children. Here, there are very few births as a whole and so they are taking every fertile woman they can get.

On 14.6.2017 at 11:40 PM, Umbelina said:

I don't think it was hedging the bets.  If the show was over, it was over, and I think they would have included the epilogue.  Why not? 

It wasn't over, so they didn't.  The finale worked well either way, whether season, as we saw, or some sort of epilogue to tie it up a bit for a series ender.

You just described them hedging their bets.

11 hours ago, Becks said:

I know Claire Danes has been widely praised for her reading of the novel, but I wasn't a fan of her delivery - I found it very droning. No wonder you were tuning out.

I listened to the Betty Harris version. That wasn't great either. For one she sounded a bit old for being a Handmaid (not sure if she was, but sure sounded like it) and her delivery also wasn't great.

8 hours ago, Eureka said:

I thought the Historical Notes was the best part of the whole book in terms of giving it a framework and answering some of the questions that were vague in the book, like what was Nick's role and did Offred get out alive, which we obviously end up finding later that she did.

I agree that that part was very interesting. Though I find it a little unbelieveable that they would really know this little about Gilead a mere 150 years later. Sure Gilead itself destroyed records and there was a lot of turmoil in the country, but there were also a lot of refugees, who would have relayed information, that would have been archived by other countries. Plus all the information spy agencies would have gathered about this highly unstable country. It would have been the priority of every other country. Maybe I'm thinking to modern. Today GCHQ, FSB, BND and others would dump all of Gileads databases in no time, especially since Gilead probably wouldn't have many experienced tech workers left. It must have been more difficult to get to information back then. Still, I'd assume they'd have more.

Btw. does anybody know where that University was supposed to be? Was it a fictional name, or was it recognisable? I would guess by all the native american names, somewhere in the US (and also that the white people breeding program probably didn't work out so well).

53 minutes ago, AllyB said:

I think if they were to introduce June's mother, the only way to do so would be to have her in flashbacks and for her story to be that she actually died very early into Gilead's existence. But I suspect that she won't be included.

It really depends on how many seasons they are planning. If it's 3+ they'll milk the book for all it's worth and that will include Junes mother. They planted a little seed this season where I thought "oh she sounds interesting", when she was mentioned.

On 1.5.2017 at 6:55 PM, Ripley68 said:

One thing I never understood in the book either; what exactly is a "shredder" baby. I know its a baby that wasn't 100 percent healthy, but I don't know what the term alludes to.

I assume a baby they would throw into a shredder. Maybe metaphorically, but knowing Gilead, maybe literally.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Miles

[txhorns79]

Quote

However, June--in the show--never seemed to have any strong emotions tied to her mother that we saw.  To suddenly have her wanting her mother, to be concerned about this person who wasn't mentioned in more than one sentence by a tertiary character, just wouldn't ring true.

I think in the book, June is pretty conflicted about how she feels concerning her mother.  She obviously panics when her mother's apartment is ransacked and her mother has vanished, but I think the book suggests that June and her mother have a very complicated relationship.  I don't think the show has really explored the issue one way or the other.  As it is, June's main focus is survival and her daughter.  I can see how when that is the equation, you don't have a lot left over emotionally to get upset over other things.     

[OtterMommy]

1 minute ago, txhorns79 said:

I think in the book, June is pretty conflicted about how she feels concerning her mother.  She obviously panics when her mother's apartment is ransacked and her mother has vanished, but I think the book suggests that June and her mother have a very complicated relationship.  I don't think the show has really explored the issue one way or the other.  As it is, June's main focus is survival and her daughter.  I can see how when that is the equation, you don't have a lot left over emotionally to get upset over other things.     

The highlighted section is why I think introducing June's mother as a "present" character in the 2nd season wouldn't make any sense.  She did have a conflicted relationship with her mother in the book, but her emotions around that relationship were always present, something that hasn't happened in the show.

I can't say that I think that, because her focus is on her daughter, her feelings about her mother are left out of the equation.  Speaking only for myself, my experience as a mother is thoroughly colored by my relationship with my own mother.  Plus, in the show, we see a lot about June's relationship with Luke and with Moira--and that all makes sense, but the absence of the relationship with her mother really doesn't if they are going to bring her in.

[Miles]

I think the difference between the show and the book is that in the show we hear Junes internal monolouge a lot less often, and when we hear it it's usually relevant to the current situation. We don't hear her thinking about Hannah all that often either. I think that leaves the door open for her mother to come back. Most importantly, I just don't see these show runners not using every part of the animal (book).

I also remember June looking a bit uncomfortable, when her mother was mentioned, so I think the conflicted relationship was teased somewhat on the show.

[txhorns79]

Quote

I can't say that I think that, because her focus is on her daughter, her feelings about her mother are left out of the equation.  Speaking only for myself, my experience as a mother is thoroughly colored by my relationship with my own mother.  Plus, in the show, we see a lot about June's relationship with Luke and with Moira--and that all makes sense, but the absence of the relationship with her mother really doesn't if they are going to bring her in.

I think in a normal situation, June's thoughts regarding her daughter would be colored by her experiences with her mother.  In this case, she's going through extreme trauma in a hellishly repressive environment where even a perceived slight to the powers that be could be fatal.  I think in those situations, you just emotionally shut down and things become compartmentalized.  You focus mostly on your own survival and, with June, the one thing she wants more than anything else, her daughter.         

[Umbelina]

I think if they do introduce the colonies, we may meet June's mother. 

[Becks]

6 hours ago, Miles said:

I listened to the Betty Harris version. That wasn't great either. For one she sounded a bit old for being a Handmaid (not sure if she was, but sure sounded like it) and her delivery also wasn't great.

I've heard that one too, and I tend to agree with you - Harris didn't click for me either. My favorite audio version isn't an audiobook at all, but a radio drama produced by the BBC with an American cast in 2000. The podcast Secrets, Crimes & Audiotapes ran it this past January - you can listen to it here. Just scroll through the episode list to January 3, 2017. They released it in six parts, from January 3 through the 31st. Or you can download it from iTunes, which is how I listened - I tried to download it from the Secrets, Crimes & Audiotapes site, but couldn't get any episodes besides the first one to download. Itunes was easier.

[AnswersWanted]

Quote

Why wouldnt addicts be Jezabels ? Drugs booze and cigarettes.Please dont say cause fertile.. Cause Moiria was fertile. Why were formerly high powered women given the "choice" to be Jezebels? 

 

This is an issue I think that both the novel and the TV show have covered in very decent detail, and it's not hard to see why the Regime chooses the women they do for the roles they want.

Why would the leading men in Gilead have to settle for former addicts when they have literally come up with laws and legislative that allows them to take the top women in the country, cream of the crop females, and force them to put on slutty outfits and perform unspeakable acts at their whim?

Sure an addict would serve rather eagerly for such easy scores, but she would still be an addict. A "lesser" woman in the opinion of these men, a woman that you would only sink low enough to use if you had no other choice. However, in this world, in Gilead, they not only have choices, they have managed to take that right away from all females completely.

In Gilead women live to serve however men (the Regime leaders) see fit. No more sneaking off to seedy motels with a lady of the night while lying to the old ball and chain about his whereabouts.

No, now he has his own personal sex slave that he can house at home, a woman he can rape during a "sanctified" ceremony or just in general if he wants.

Heck, he can smuggle her out to a special club to play with her further with others, getting her to crawl in bed with one of those former female CEOs that now lives her life with legs spread on command and once that proves tired and boring she is basically guaranteed a death sentence of the worst sort.

I think they wanted to take the women that thought they were "too good" for men, to be little Suzy homemakers, who put off having children, who focused on their schooling and job opportunities, women who acted as if they were "above" being wives and mothers. And of course I am sure Moira was not the only "gender traitor" that those pos rounded up to "teach a lesson to".

The leaders of Gilead are men who believe women had too much freedom before. They were given too many chances to think they were just as good, just as capable, just as intelligent, as men, and that even extended to their sexuality, "choosing" to like women and be gay against god's design and all that bs. So what better way to turn the tables on them?

Remember when you scoffed at the idea of women who used to "earn" a job promotion by letting the boss pinch their bottom or wear a low cut blouse and ultra tight, short skirt? Well now you get to live out your days as a sex doll on demand; you have lost the ability to say "no", rape doesn't exist in your world now, there are no sexism laws and no HR to file a complaint with.

These were the women who refused to "play the game", now they have lost everything, dignity, choice, and that oh so dangerous female ego that they frown upon. 

One might assume that the Regime would realize that they are taking a risk with these types of women, but just as June saw when she came across Moira and it shocked her to see her strong, confident and cocky best friend acting more like an overly abused puppy. They have ways of making a woman crack, of making her value just living another day over much else.

I think back to the way Fred toyed with Moira and I can only imagine what a man like him made a woman like her do. It turns my stomach.

[Miles]

Just listened to the new epilouge. God that professor is a douchenosel. That was really hard to listen to.

It's cute Atwood thinks that there will still be magazines in 200 years.

So when does the Handmaid's tale actually take place? I got the impression it was the 1990s or maybe early 2000s. I mean they still used tapes. But they mention an iPad here. That came out in 2010 and I doubt it would have been developed in a country like Gilead. Did Steve Jobs migrate to England or Canada and ran/built Apple there? Or is this just a pretty bad inconsistency?

In general, these retcons, are kinda fun, especially the introduction of DNA science.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Miles

[txhorns79]

Quote

So when does the Handmaid's tale actually take place? I got the impression it was the 1990s or maybe early 2000s. I mean they still used tapes. But they mention an iPad here. That came out in 2010 and I doubt it would have been developed in a country like Gilead. Did Steve Jobs migrate to England or Canada and ran/built Apple there? Or is this just a pretty bad inconsistency?

With the book, I viewed the timeline as the early 2000s as seen through the eyes of someone living in the 1980s trying to imagine the future.  With the show, I think they are supposed to be the present day or perhaps a year or so ahead of us.  They talk about having had things like Uber in the time before.   

[JasonCC]

Quote

One might assume that the Regime would realize that they are taking a risk with these types of women, but just as June saw when she came across Moira and it shocked her to see her strong, confident and cocky best friend acting more like an overly abused puppy. They have ways of making a woman crack, of making her value just living another day over much else.

AnswersWanted: Just quoted this final bit but I agree with the whole post how the men of Gilead and the Jezebels and psychology thereof that many of the Jezebels were in the "before time" the very women Gilead was a backlash to. I think it's more than hinted at in the book the men are fine with the Jezebels being drug and/or alcohol dependent--keeps them tamed more than any locked door can. And from the perspective of the women who can blame them for wanting to numb their existence as much as humanly possibly.

[nodorothyparker]

The original book came out in 1985.  Those of us who read it then imagined it happening mostly in the near future as there's references in the epilogue to the schools closing in the late '80s for lack of children.  I know there was an updated epilogue, but I've never read/heard it so I can't comment on that.

Looking back on it now, we knew a lot of things were going to be computerized in the coming decades but I don't think the average person really envisioned just how much.  Bank cards and the idea of a cashless society that could so easily be used as a means of control were still largely sci-fi.  We certainly didn't imagine the internet or online publishing as it exists now.  Or at least I didn't.

[txhorns79]

Quote

The original book came out in 1985.  Those of us who read it then imagined it happening mostly in the near future as there's references in the epilogue to the schools closing in the late '80s for lack of children.  I know there was an updated epilogue, but I've never read/heard it so I can't comment on that.

Yeah, they talk about things from the time before like paper money no longer being used, having "Compucards" (like debit cards) and June worked as someone who transferred books to disc.  And apparently some kind of sexmobile would drive through town squares offering sexual services, which just sounds kind of cramped and unpleasant to me. 

[Umbelina]

She had to use the Compucards to make this story work.  Cash money would have giving women more options for easier escaping (bribes, plane rentals, etc.)  I remember reading an interview with her long ago about that being needed for this story to work, the one slight liberty she took. 

Although I did have a debit card back then, so they did exist, I got one of the first ones in my area since my boyfriend was a VP at a major bank headquarters back then.

[nodorothyparker]

My quick Google-fu tells me that ATM debit cards were introduced in the late '60s but didn't catch on for super widespread use until the later '80s and '90s.  I know I got my first one sometime in the early or mid '90s but that could have been a combination of small town banking and not being old enough/having any real money to put in an account that would need one before then.   It was seen as this really cool convenient thing to not have to have cash for every place that wouldn't take a check.  I've always thought the way Atwood wrote about the Compucards was so prescient it was genius.

I do remember that period when we thought everything was going to be on the big floppy discs and later the smaller hard ones.  It was going to be so much more convenient to only have to keep track of a box of discs like the one I took to college instead of so many books and papers.  Like June, you could make okay money as a side job just typing information onto discs or into business's closed computer systems. 

The book's Feels on Wheels always killed me.

[Umbelina]

Yeah, as I said, boyfriend.  I'd never heard of it but he was involved in the roll out of all that.  I even know exactly which number I was as far as people who had one from Wells Fargo.  105  Back then, your password/enter number was exactly the number you were in line of ordering one.  So mine was 0105 until I changed it, years later when that was allowed.  The ATM's were only at that bank, not in grocery stores or other places for a while.  ETA, I think Vegas casinos had them pretty early on though.  ha.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Umbelina

[bonniejmac]

My mom worked in a bank in 78-79 and she's talked about how part of her job was trying to convince people to get ATM cards, which was slow going in the small southern town they lived in at the time. 

[Umbelina]

Yeah, I didn't see the point, but he said "You will."

[Stillhoping]

My major problems are...Moria...luck luck luck...she never had a kid so ehy a handmaid? Please dont say "she never had sex with a man so they think she maybe fertile"...why wasnt she sent to colonies or hung like the other gender traitors?

Why was she not killed or sent to tje colonies after her auntie escape?

[chocolatine]

58 minutes ago, Stillhoping said:

My major problems are...Moria...luck luck luck...she never had a kid so ehy a handmaid? Please dont say "she never had sex with a man so they think she maybe fertile"...why wasnt she sent to colonies or hung like the other gender traitors?

This is just my theory, but since Gilead is pretty low-tech and the color of the Handmaids' uniforms is red, perhaps a woman's "fertility" was determined by whether or not she had a regular menstrual cycle?

 

1 hour ago, Stillhoping said:

Why was she not killed or sent to tje colonies after her auntie escape?

That was explained both in the book and on the show - there was demand for young pretty women at Jezebels. She was given the "choice" to either be a sex slave there or be sent to the colonies. She chose Jezebels because she'd stay alive longer that way.

[bijoux]

On 16.06.2017. at 1:08 AM, AllyB said:

I think if they were to introduce June's mother, the only way to do so would be to have her in flashbacks and for her story to be that she actually died very early into Gilead's existence. But I suspect that she won't be included. I also have my doubts about the Econowives. The flashbacks in The Other Side made it clear that any fertile women were just rounded up and sent to centres. So any and all fertile women are Handmaids not women who fell foul of some retroactively pursued law and were also fertile. That means Econowives, at least of the triple-striped dress variety, can't exist as Econowives were (at least potentially) fertile.

I still haven't read the book, but I read a bit about this class, and assumed we saw one in episode 9. The woman who approaches Serena Joy and Naomi as they're walking with baby Charlotte/Angela. She wasn't coded as any of the women we have seen up until that point and she did approach two Wives on the street. I doubt a Handmaid or a Martha would have done that.

[Stillhoping]

9 hours ago, chocolatine said:

This is just my theory, but since Gilead is pretty low-tech and the color of the Handmaids' uniforms is red, perhaps a woman's "fertility" was determined by whether or not she had a regular menstrual cycle?

 

That was explained both in the book and on the show - there was demand for young pretty women at Jezebels. She was given the "choice" to either be a sex slave there or be sent to the colonies. She chose Jezebels because she'd stay alive longer that way.

Hmmm....and others just explain that Jezebels are former professional women that the commanders enjoy the humiliation of it

Actually in a brutal place like Gilead I think Moiria would have been sent to the colonies or hung after she attacked an aunt and escaped. 

I also think problem people ...addicts...criminals....mentally ill...disabled would be killed...some more cruelly than others. 

As a new...and shaky....regime it is nit beluevable to me that they would not be more proactive

[jjj]

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:35 AM, Umbelina said:

So, here's my guess guys, what do you think?

I think they filmed the final episode, NIGHT as is.  However there was one additional scene.  The whole epilogue was probably filmed as well, or voiced over in some way.

IF they were renewed, simply cut that as the final scene and save it for later (as needed.)  They were renewed, so that scene was cut completely so we can watch more of Gilead/Mayday/Canada during a second season.

That was a pretty brilliant way to go if I'm right.  They would have had a book-ending, but because of the second season news, they don't need it yet.

I though the whole idea of Offred being pregnant got lost at the end of the book -- she said she was sure she was (to Nick), but no reference to that afterward -- and because she recorded the audiotapes at least a month or few months later, you'd think the book would include that as part of her narration. 

Random book v. series question:  I did not watch the "Luke" episode -- did they include the cat in that episode when the escape was attempted by June/Luke?  Don't think I want to watch if he kills the cat in the series. 

The series went much farther with the presence of June's daughter in the series -- living in the vicinity, and with June seeing her.  I'd think that is part of the second season.  I agree the mother would be an intrusive character out of the blue, so unlikely to appear.  I have to wonder if workers in the Colonies jockeyed for positioning to appear in the film footage, as a way of sending a message out to the universe, and hopefully, to loved ones, that they were still alive at that point. 

Is the time span at the Waterford household just a few months?  I know June had been a Handmaid for a few years by then, but the book/series seemed to just be a very short time span.  Two or three cycles of the Ceremony?  Although Offred must have been there for enough previous cycles to have Serena Joy tell her that her time would be up soon. 

[chickenella]

Nope, no cat scene that I can remember. Thank God.

[chocolatine]

14 minutes ago, chickenella said:

Nope, no cat scene that I can remember. Thank God.

The show tried very hard to make Luke a sympathetic character; having him kill the cat would have made that impossible.

Edited June 26, 2017 by chocolatine

[jjj]

23 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

The show tried very hard to make Luke a sympathetic character; having him kill the cat would have made that impossible.

Thank you.  I will watch that episode at some point, but would have been dreading it if he had killed the cat in the series. 

[bijoux]

I started reading the novel and I'm about one third way in. I find that having watched the series actually helps make the book more interesting to me. It could be that it's a (very good) translation - the town library doesn't have the original - but it reads dry and monotone. Something that the voice overs on the show were really not. I'm usually not a fan of voice overs, but Elizabeth Moss did an amazing job of them and I'm finding myself superimposing her voice and inflection to Offred's tale.

[chocolatine]

10 hours ago, bijoux said:

It could be that it's a (very good) translation - the town library doesn't have the original

Translation? The novel was originally written in English.

[secnarf]

16 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Translation? The novel was originally written in English.

And has since been translated into other languages ;)

[chocolatine]

9 minutes ago, secnarf said:

And has since been translated into other languages ;)

Of course. I shouldn't post after a day of drinking sangria.

[secnarf]

8 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Of course. I shouldn't post after a day of drinking sangria.

That is coincidentally how I spent my day also! It was wonderful :)

[Pachengala]

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

Of course. I shouldn't post after a day of drinking sangria.

You should ALWAYS post after drinking sangria! The mods should make that law.

[bijoux]

4 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Translation? The novel was originally written in English.

 

4 hours ago, secnarf said:

And has since been translated into other languages ;)

 

4 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Of course. I shouldn't post after a day of drinking sangria.

? Yes, I only managed to find a copy in Croatian in the library. The only book of Atwood's they have in English is Cat's Cradle. 

I'm nearing the end, and I have to acknowledge what a good adaptation this has been. It's far from perfect, but they did an excellent job of enriching and rounding out supporting characters, primarily Ofglen, Janine, Serena Joy and the Commander. 

[In a dream]

I think Offred's mother wasn't included in the Hulu series for several reasons, but a major one is the time period.  The book was written in the mid 1980s and the mother was portrayed as an early feminist, fighting for abortion rights when it was illegal, etc.  The mother was kind of along the lines of Betty Freidan or Gloria Steinem.  In the 1980s book that age timeline of mother/daughter worked, but it wouldn't today (or for soon in the future).

Also, I don't remember anything about a cat being killed in the book, thank goodness. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by In a dream